Pumpelly v. Village of Owego

22 How. Pr. 385
New York Supreme Court·Decided January 15, 1862·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

By the Court.

An appeal lies to the general term from an order made at a special term, “ when it grants or refuses a new trial.” (Code, § 349, sub. 2.) The order in this case refusing a new trial, was regularly made before the judgment was entered; and we think an appeal lies from the order to the general term, notwithstanding the entry of the judgment before the same was taken. (See 19 How. Pr. R., 515.) The case of Jackson agt. Fassett, (33 Barb., 645,) and others like it, only show that a motion for a new trial on a case cannot be made at a special term after judgment has been entered unconditionally in the action. Thosei decisions are not in point upon this motion.

The motion to dismiss the appeal is therefore denied, with $10 costs to abide the event of the action.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Pumpelly v. Village of Owego, 22 How. Pr. 385 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1862).

22 How. Pr. 385 (Pumpelly v. Village of Owego) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Voisin v. Commercial Mutual Insurance
25 N.E. 325 (New York Court of Appeals, 1890)
Voisin v. Commercial Mutual Insurance
9 N.Y.S. 267 (New York Supreme Court, 1890)
Stilwell v. Staples
4 Rob. 639 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1866)
Lane v. Bailey
1 Abb. Pr. 407 (New York Supreme Court, 1865)